Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

10 February 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011

I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

http://www activistpost com/2014/12/these-15-arguments-will-destroy.html

how many planes hit the pentagon josh? liar.

By you losers on 2014 12 21 - 09:35:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett is correct if he states that airway charts are no direct indication of actual traffic.

However it shows that there are designated routes over South Burnett. It’s not an area where air traffic is unusual.

For the actual traffic consult Flightradar 24 over the South Burnett region.

Regarding the semantics of “from/to Sydney and Brisbane” let me clearly state that I never had the route between Sydney and Brisbane in mind. This might have been more clear to people following the discussion with Cris.

The bottom line and the relevant point is that there is just no evidence for days with “only one jet” over South Burnett. Flight tracking shows clearly that there is constant traffic over the region. Show me a day with only five jets over South Burnett on Flightradar 24 - even limited to the daylight period - and I will be convinced.

The statement of Cris (“We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally”) can indeed only refer to the visibility with bare eyes on a non-trail day, not the actual traffic, as explained extensively and repeatedly.

Regarding the “3 or more abreast” situation that Cris referred to, I quote my reply from the first time this was brought up:

Next time you see three planes abreast, or circles, or grids - grab a camera and take a picture. Otherwise it’s hard to say what you saw. May have been normal traffic where the many routes are bound to intersect at some points, or circling in holding positions, or military exercises.

Without seeing pictures, it’s just speculation.

I can add now that I have observed several situations on Flightradar where three planes were close together (vertically separated of course), going in the same direction. Why should that be unusual?

 

By Josh on 2014 12 19 - 01:13:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

chris

By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????

you dont get answers from josh anonymous.. its beyond his capabilities, you will get a whole heap of incomprehensible bluff and bluster though..

i usually try to make it easy for the poor sap, just asking simple yes or no questions, or those requiring a one word answer..  but they seem to be the ones he struggles with the most? - he really is an enigma.. he should donate his body to science, and i dont think he should wait till he dies either..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:45:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard

This means aircraft from/to Sydney and Brisbane. There is no mention of any other geographical locations so it is demonstrable that you refer to those two cities.

he must really struggle with simple day to day tasks.. honestly.. that is another example of when he accussed me of making threats, then denied he wrote that, then wanted me to show him precisely where he did, and when shown, simply ignores all reference to it..  pretends it didnt happen at all.. unbelievable really - if he is the best answer to prove that chemtrails dont exist, they really are struggling.. 

he thinks proving a point, obviously, is simply banging away at the keyboard and hitting submit, with no consideration to rhyme or reason.. relevence, consistency, logic or common sense.

he wont / cant even answer simple questions.. incapable of providing a yes or no answer to a simple question. he feels his inconsistencies, lies, qualifications, credibility, have no relevence to anything so long as he keeps the babble going on and on.. he is doing a good job.

I suspect Janonymous is a whack-job rather than a shill.

you might be right there, it would be almost impossible for a shill to pretend to be so stupid.. and in most instances, id feel a little bit of pity..  but i dont in this case, he needs medication or something, he is obviously in a lot of misery..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:42:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Pretty busy here.
Looked at the link late last night.
If there were planes on those routes I would have seen very few as nearly all of the routes don’t come close enough to me.
Maximus, you are not omniscient.
You are clueless.
By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????
What about the ones that intersect those paths….only a few of which go near me?????
What about the stop start ones?
And the ones that make curvy border around an approaching weather front?
Or the giant circle that I took photos of?
Just because the lap dog news can pump out NWO propaganda unopposed because they won’t print evidence to the contrary doesn’t mean you will get away with it.
Do you need hearing aids?
VERY FEW JETS UP HERE UNLESS THERE IS IMMANENT RAIN!!!

By Cris on 2014 12 18 - 12:30:48
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Janonymous, if you knew anything at all, you would know that the Skyvector aeronautical charts you give reference to are simply charts of airways and no indication of any traffic whatsoever.

Leonard Clampett,
“I have flown Sydney - Brisbane and Brisbane - Sydney many tines”
Huh? Did anybody talk about that route?
I said that planes from Sydney and to Sydney as well as planes from Brisbane and to Brisbane are flying over the region.
Earlier I have stated (referring to Queensland):
“All the traffic between Shanghai, Beijing in the North-West and Sydney in the Sout-East is going over it, as well as the Brisbane - Singapore route. Among the traffic are many cargo flights which shouldn’t come as a surprise. Then add all those continental connections.”
Here is a direct link to the enroute vector map centered over Brisbane. Drag it to South Burnett - as I said, fairly busy.
By Josh on 2014 12 17 - 22:34:06

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 12 18 - 12:07:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Janonymous seems not to be able to understand that which he writes. BTW Janonymous, you did not “say”, you “wrote” the following. Perhaps English is not your first language, but you seem to try hard with it to demonstrate your odd views. You WROTE the following;

“Looking at FR24, there are many, possibly 60-70 (varying, of course), because planes from/to Sydney and Brisbane do fly over the region. Run FR24 in time-warping mode to visualize the traffic during one day.”

.

This means aircraft from/to Sydney and Brisbane. There is no mention of any other geographical locations so it is demonstrable that you refer to those two cities. It means aircraft flying between the two cities. If you really knew anything about that which you claim, you would know that aircraft that fly over the Burnett are not those between Sydney and many other places. Look at the maps. look at the high and low level RNC’s. Wake up. If you meant aircraft arriving at, and departing from, Sydney and Brisbane for other locations you would have written so.

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 12 18 - 11:58:26
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

dont ya love it when theis .. beyond the spin website ... posts twitter links ad nauseam regurtitating main stream media spin of the ‘sydney siege” - utter hypocrisy

how many planes hit the pentagon josh you liar?  whats wrong? cant answer a simple question?

By Anrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 11:32:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

how many planes hit the pentagon josh you liar?  whats wrong? cant answer a simple question?

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 09:34:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

I have flown Sydney - Brisbane and Brisbane - Sydney many tines

Huh? Did anybody talk about that route?

I said that planes from Sydney and to Sydney as well as planes from Brisbane and to Brisbane are flying over the region.

Earlier I have stated (referring to Queensland):

“All the traffic between Shanghai, Beijing in the North-West and Sydney in the Sout-East is going over it, as well as the Brisbane - Singapore route. Among the traffic are many cargo flights which shouldn’t come as a surprise. Then add all those continental connections.”

Here is a direct link to the enroute vector map centered over Brisbane. Drag it to South Burnett - as I said, fairly busy.

By Josh on 2014 12 17 - 22:34:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories